Liberal Democrats

What larks in Eastleigh! As various Tory MPs have tweeted in identikit
fashion, the Lib Dem candidate has today ‘fessed up to voting for 5,000 new
homes to be built on previously undeveloped green space – and this despite
campaign literature which warns that “countryside spaces between our towns and
villages across the borough of Eastleigh are under new threat thanks to
Hampshire Conservatives”. Grant Shapps puts it thus:

“The Lib Dems Eastleigh campaign is in
turmoil. Their central promise to the people of Eastleigh is to protect the
local area’s green spaces. But now their candidate has admitted that they will
concrete over the countryside with their plans for 5,000 new houses on green
field sites.

The Liberal Democrats cannot mislead
the voters forever – they’ve been found out. Nick Clegg now needs to apologise
for the Lib Dems’ totally inaccurate claims.”

And there’s another Lib Dem-related story that CCHQ has set about exploiting
today: the Mail
on Sunday splash about Team Clegg’s plans to extend wealth taxes into your
jewellery box. According to the paper, the Lib Dem leadership is considering—alongside
the introduction of a souped-up mansion tax—an idea to allow taxmen into people’s
homes to value, and then slap levies across, assets such as necklaces and
paintings. Admittedly, Vince Cable has since played down many elements of the
story, but not before Tories across
Twitter seized on it with alacrity and gratitude.

In truth, the Lib Dems’ general eagerness to tax wealth creates as much a
conundrum for the Tory leadership as a target. Of course, it’s easy to strike
out at any jewellery tax, but a stronger variety of mansion tax is a different
matter altogether. As “one influential figure” suggests
to James Forsyth, Labour's sympathy for such a levy could alter the balance
of negotiations in the event of another hung parliament – meaning that “Cameron
will have to fold and accept a mansion tax as the price of power.”

Myself, I think the Tories shouldn’t dismiss higher taxes on expensive
properties out-of-hand – for reasons I've set
out before. But this is hardly a possiblity that will cheer many party
members.

Our
Parliamentarians are back in town — and, boy, don’t we know it. There have been
two rather cranky, yet noteworthy, Q&A sessions in the Commons today.

The
first featured Michael Gove, and can be watched in its entirety here. The
Education Secretary repeated the main points from his Today Programme interview
this morning: that he will not intervene in the GCSE marking row as it is a
matter for the exams regulator Ofqual, and that he and the government will soon
announce their GCSE reform plans, presumably designed to make the exams more
rigorous.

The
second came after Nick Clegg’s statement about Lords reform, in which the
Deputy Prime Minister confirmed — as if confirmation were needed — that the
Coalition’s plans for the second chamber are no more. Some Tory MPs cheered as
Mr Clegg grumbled through his lines, seemingly delighted at his discomfort. “'I can confirm that the Government has
today withdrawn that Bill,” he said, “about which I am not as happy as members
behind me are.”

But
there was anger, as well as merriment, from the Tory benches — for, after his
original statement, Mr Clegg reaffirmed his intention to vote down the boundary
changes, claiming once again that they were wrapped up in the same policy
package as Lords reform. “Nothing will change my mind,” he added for emphasis,
even though there remains
speculation that something eventually might.

It
was around this point that Eleanor Laing cited Mr Clegg’s previous words on the
matter:

“The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed
that on 6 August, he said that, the House of Lords Reform Bill having been
withdrawn, his party would no longer support the boundaries legislation. Does
he recall that on 19 April, in answer to my questions, he told the Select
Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that there was ‘no link’
between the two issues? Does he accept that he cannot have been telling the
truth on both occasions?”

Soon after, Jacob Rees Mogg asked a question that
began in tongue-in-cheek but ended with a rasp:

“May I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on his
remarkable statesmanship with regard to the boundary changes? He will be
pleased to know that the commission was proposing a North East Somerset that
would have been a safe Lib Dem seat, so I am in with a sporting chance of being
back after the next election. However, now that he has said that Lib Dem
Ministers will vote against Government policy, I wonder what his definition of
collective responsibility is within a coalition Government.”

And, before them both, Bernard Jenkin had implied
that Mr Clegg’s actions were a “disgrace”:

“My right hon. Friend should comfort himself: he
gave it his best shot, with all his sincerity, and we respect him for that. May
I draw his attention to the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and
Constituencies Act 2011 remains in force? Therefore, the boundary commissions
remain under a duty to make proposals on a House of 600 Members. Does he have
the power to instruct them to stop? No, he does not. Is he therefore not simply
going to obstruct a constitutional process for his own party political
advantage, which is a disgrace?”

What was particularly striking, apart from these
Tory attacks, was the ferocity of the Deputy Prime Minister’s attacks against
Labour. At one point he described them as “miserable little party point-scoring
politicians,” which will do nothing to invalidate the idea that he could
never take his party into Coalition with Miliband & Co. (or, more accurately
perhaps, his party could never take him into Coalition with Miliband &
Co.).

So, first day back for Nick Clegg, and he already
seems to be antagonising MPs on all sides. He’s really only safe in the Cabinet
Office now.

At PMQs today, David Cameron was asked about the decision by all Liberal Democrat MPs to collectively defy a three-line whip, and abstain from voting on a motion defending Cameron's EU treay veto. Although Cameron didn't elaborate further on the Liberal Democrat position, he did express his gratitude to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who had decided to table the motion due to the veto being in the "vital interest" of the British people.

Yesterday morning, Nick Clegg had said that Liberal Democrat MPs should vote in favour of the motion, but swiftly did a u-turn in the evening and ordered them to abstain. Only one Liberal Democrat MP, Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) spoke at the debate, saying the outcome of the Brussels summit was "not a good one". Horwood also attacked eurosceptic Tory MPs, saying:

"The process is still a long way from complete and there are quite a few obstacles in its path, some of them sitting in this Chamber, I think."

"The Lib Dem [rebellion] rate of 28% is higher than that seen by government MPs in all but seven post-war sessions. (It is also noticeably higher than the rate of rebellion seen by Lib Dems in any session for which we have data, going back to 1992-93 when the rate of rebellion was at 9%)...

...Indeed, the whole of the last Parliament – covering five years - saw just 39 divisions in which at least one Liberal Democrat voted against their party line; in just over five months, the total for the 2010 Parliament has already reached 31. We predict that by Christmas Liberal Democrat MPs will have rebelled more often in the short life of the Coalition than in the whole of the last Parliament...

...Thus far, 89 Coalition MPs have so far broken ranks against the Government; 67 of them Conservatives, together with 22 Liberal Democrats. Both are high figures, but in relative terms it is the Lib Dem figure that is the more impressive. The 67 Conservative rebels constitute a third of the backbench Conservative parliamentary party. The Liberal Democrat parliamentary party currently comprises 57 MPs, but of these 22 (or 39%) are members of the payroll vote, either as ministers or parliamentary private secretaries, expected to remain loyal in voice but especially vote to the government. The Liberal Democrat ‘backbench’ therefore consists of 35 MPs. For 22 of these have rebelled against the Government therefore means that a whopping 63% of backbench Lib Dems have defied the whip.

Liberal Democrat rebels are more likely to have cast dissenting votes on social issues, such as the increase in VAT from 15% to 17.5%, the introduction of free schools and the expansion of academies, and curbs to superannuation for civil servants. Conservative-only rebellions make up 46% of the total of Coalition rebellions thus far. Lib Dem only votes make up 34% of the rebellions that the Coalition has faced thus far. Votes in which Conservative and Liberal Democrat rebels unite in common cause against the Government account for only one in five of the rebellions."

However, the authors note that "the lowest Government majority thus far has been 58" - the paper was clearly written before the tuition fees votes - and that the average Liberal Democrat revolt consists of just three MPs.

Does the pre-Christmas date of the paper render its contents out of date? No, for two reasons. First, because the figures stand. Second, because the revolts are continuing: on the website, the authors point out that Liberal Democrat MPs have revolted recently over such issues as postal services, the educational maintenance allowance and the proposed forest sell-off.